Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

SF 2002 Using purple marks for boundry lines/tresspassing

SF 2002 Should purple marks be allowed for boundy/no treesspass signage?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Undecided

Results are only viewable after voting.
What's "broken" that needs fixed by this? I guess it's cheaper and faster to paint that to hang signs. Will people think that if it isn't painted its open?
 
JNRBRONC said:
What's "broken" that needs fixed by this? I guess it's cheaper and faster to paint that to hang signs. Will people think that if it isn't painted its open?
Click to expand...

I agree with the above. I know that some states have this "purple posting" rule already, and I am pretty sure that other states have something similar using I think orange and red for the warning colors.
 
Decades ago, I deer hunted northern MN and if I recall correctly, the landowner needed to paint/post to keep people off. If you didn't, people could trespass. I don't think we need to confuse the issue.
 
It's dumb. Cheaper than signs but 99% of the people have no clue what purple means. We have it over here.
 
Seems a better solution is to remove the notification requirement for it to be considered trespassing. That eliminates the need for signs or paint. Unless you have permission, it should be considered trespassing.
 
Rjack said:
Seems a better solution is to remove the notification requirement for it to be considered trespassing. That eliminates the need for signs or paint. Unless you have permission, it should be considered trespassing.
Click to expand...
This x 2. As a landowner it is sickening to think a sign needs posted or a post painted to keep trespassers out. If you don’t have permission, keep out or risk the consequence of being fined (and ridiculed).
 
We have the purple paint deal in Kansas now. In my lifetime, everybody knew what "No Hunting" or "No Trespassing " signs meant. Now we just have every other farm looking terrible because people slather purple paint everywhere. Some people paint every third post. It looks stupid and cheap. You drive by a high pole gate and one has 3 feet painted purple and the opposite post has 5 feet painted purple.

I actually always thought it was a conspiracy to get everybody to appear to be K-State fans because purple is their team color.
 
The possible future of Iowa’s landscape?
24C23730-5DF3-4E74-80EA-ED130F324A36.jpeg


........Just beautiful:confused:
 
Fishbonker said:
Be sure the spray can says purple and not magenta or fuchsia. The trespasser would et off on a technicality.
Click to expand...
People need to remember that there is official no trespassing purple paint.... not just any purple paint will suffice:cool:
 
I grew up hunting in Missouri and they had this law then. I always figured it was because those hillbilly Missourians just couldn't read well, so they tried to make it fool proof. :D
Joking aside, I'm not a fan. I think it's tacky and it seems like more work and upkeep than hanging up "no trespassing" signs.
 
Ishi said:
People need to remember that there is official no trespassing purple paint.... not just any purple paint will suffice:cool:
Click to expand...

full


As all of you can now see for yourself...Ishi was RIGHT. There IS official "no trespassing" paint, see above. I happened to see this today in a catalog that I get(Ben Meadows) and I smiled as I remembered this thread. I thought it would only be right for me to share this with fellow IW'ers. You can get your official no trespassing paint here! Remember, DO NOT try to use regular purple paint!! :cool::D
 
Just for the fun of it, I Googled "no trespassing purple" paint and got lots of hits. o_O It is for real! Amazon has a great deal on Rust-Oleum "No Hunting Purple" paint. Who knew??? :rolleyes:

Agree with changing the law so that if you don't have permission, you are trespassing!!!
 
After trying for two years to get trespass law changed, it got done last year. Officers seems to like the law and there have been no major issues. I question the need for the purple law.
 
This bill made it out of subcommittee today and will taken up by the full Judiciary Committee. 2-1 vote, Farm Bureau registered as neutral on the bill.

Here is a link to who is on the Judiciary Committee. Click on the individual and their contact information pops up: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/committees/committee?ga=87&groupID=697

I will admit that I thought land needed to be posted and this bill just added another adjunct to what constitutes posting. I was wrong in my original post. Land does not need to be posted with signage. No trespassing signs are ubiquitous therefore I though they were required. Silly me. The section of Iowa Code that defines trespassing is here: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/IACODE/2001/716/7.html and it is referenced in the bill.
 
Fishbonker said:
This bill made it out of subcommittee today and will taken up by the full Judiciary Committee. 2-1 vote, Farm Bureau registered as neutral on the bill.

Here is a link to who is on the Judiciary Committee. Click on the individual and their contact information pops up: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/committees/committee?ga=87&groupID=697

I will admit that I thought land needed to be posted and this bill just added another adjunct to what constitutes posting. I was wrong in my original post. Land does not need to be posted with signage. No trespassing signs are ubiquitous therefore I though they were required. Silly me. The section of Iowa Code that defines trespassing is here: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/IACODE/2001/716/7.html and it is referenced in the bill.
Click to expand...

I like your intrepretation, but don't read it that way. 2a indicates you must be doing certain activities on the property (hunting being one of them) for it to be trespassing without notification. 2b is what says you can't enter a property or must leave after being notified - and posting is notification.

The way I read the current law, it is tresspassing to hunt on property without permission, but it is not trespassing to walk across property that is not posted.

Evidentially I am reading it incorrectly as Randy Taylor indicates all the sportsman groups are happy with the current trespassing laws. I still see the purple paint as a different way to "notify" people that entering the property for any reason is not allowed.

I still believe the current law needs tightened up even more.
 
It has been brought to my attention, in a round about way, by the sponsor of the bill that I was incorrect in my opinion about posting land. After I was more or less taken to the woodshed for my post, my link and my opinion I re-researched my research and realized that the link I had posted was from Iowa Code 2001. Even the Iowa Code 2017 was published before the bill was passed so here is a link to what the Governor actually signed and is inforce today:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGE/87/Attachments/HF69_GovLetter.pdf

Please draw your own conclusions after reading what was signed and/or consult someone who knows a lot more than I do and that would be just about anybody.
 
Now I know why what everyone thought what was the law wasn't what I was reading. I take back my concerns, what was signed is great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom